9 ms·

Blogger, With Focus on Surveillance, Is at Center of a Debate

181 points by uvdiv 13y ago

uvdiv 13y ago
"The article, which included a link to the order, is expected to attract an investigation from the Justice Department, which has aggressively pursued leakers."
mtgx 13y ago
They are not even hiding they are going after journalists who expose their crimes now, are they?
- jlgreco 13y ago
  If you are trying to send a message, it is best that you are sure the recipients understand it. You cannot be too subtle or you will risk not being understood.
- lostlogin 13y ago
  Ask an Al-Jazeera reporter what its like getting into the US. I don't read Al-Jazeera stuff very often, but I've never found anything that didn't seem to be good quality reporting. Yet their reporters are held for hours at the US border and questioned at greater length than actual terror suspects who've gone on to bomb stuff. It's bad.
  - jebeng 13y ago
    I've found Al-Jazeera to be the best news network out there. It seems to be only one that's not ridiculously biased and ratings driven.
    - tome 13y ago
      The bias of Fox News and the NYT are easy for Americans to see, because they both have an slant that impacts US domestic policy. Just because Al Jazeera doesn't have such a slant does not mean it is not biased.
      - cinquemb 13y ago
        Bingo, they are heavily influenced by Qatar. Influences of which help to promote the Khalifah's view points, some of which are in lock step with american foreign policy... though they play on both sides of the fences just as well as any other nation state.
    - einhverfr 13y ago
      Their history speaks for itself. They were originally a branch office of the BBC who decided to go independent when they were closed due to embarrassing the Saudi government. The embarrassment had to do with a documentary about Sharia law executions in that country. The BBC backed down, but the reporters didn't. I don't care what country's government you are from, would you like to make it easy for reporters like that to get into your country? ;-)
    - ihsw 13y ago
      AJ is in an interesting position: * most news networks in the middle east are state-run (and very obviously oppressive with heavy censorship), however AJ operates distinctly independently * as such people in the middle east are exposed to news they wouldn't normally be exposed to, for example controversial news stories or other news stories that require strict objectivity * western news networks are increasingly rebroadcasting AJ footage, most interestingly because AJ acquires exclusive interviews that other news networks aren't privy to * AJ provides live feeds of their news channel for free online * they are growing, and have plans to offer[1] Turkish (Turkey), Spanish (Latin American), and Urdu (Pakistani) channels It's exciting to say the least. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#Plans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#Plans
      - cinquemb 13y ago
        Not being state run does not mean it is not under the influences of the state and the position its leaders take. "First, it is home to al-Jazeera, the Arabic-language news network that has transformed how Arabs get their news. Many give the television channel more credit for spurring on the Arab Spring than Facebook or Twitter. By bringing the revolutions into the homes of every Arab, al-Jazeera drew regional attention to early events in Tunisia and helped boost the number of Egyptians on the streets from the thousands to the hundreds of thousands. Al-Jazeera gives Qatar “soft power” well beyond its size."[0] Kinda like the history between the CIA and many news organizations that "operate distinctly independently".[1] [0]: http://www.cfr.org/qatar/tiny-qatars-big-plans-may-change-mideast/p26143 http://www.cfr.org/qatar/tiny-qatars-big-plans-may-change-mi... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_the_media#Use_of_mass_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_the_media#Use_of_mass_...
  - tome 13y ago
    > their reporters are held for hours at the US border and questioned at greater length than actual terror suspects Citation very sorely needed.
    - olefoo 13y ago
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/25/sami-al-hajj-al-jazeera-j_n_853297.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/25/sami-al-hajj-al-jaz... Oh, wait that's not the one you were looking for; it's much worse; he's being held in a concentration camp; and questioned extensively about his employer... http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/riskingitall/2011/05/2011514141451471429.html http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/riskingitall/2011/05/201... Oh wait, no that's an Al-Jazeera story about US Border crossings. So you're right, five minutes of googling didn't turn up stories about Al-Jazeera reporters being held at US Border crossings or denied entry to the US. So it must not have happened ever!
      - tome 13y ago
        There's no need to be sarcastic about it. The comment I replied to says that when Al Jazeera reporters try to get into the US they have been questioned harder than actual terror suspects. Do you actually believe that?
        SamReidHughes 13y ago
        That's perfectly believable. You don't want to tip off a terror suspect that he's under suspicion.
        tome 13y ago
        Good point.
        lostlogin 13y ago
        If never looked at it this way - its does make sense. However it doesn't explain the treatment of reporters.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ibrahima 13y ago
I'm really glad he did this, took a lot of bravery I'm sure. I almost get the feeling that he's happy to be in the crosshairs of the US government.
flooyd 13y ago
If the U.S. prosecutes Greenwald, then it's time to prepare for a revolution.
- KNoureen 13y ago
  Considering NSA and other three letter agencies apparently have quite plenty of surveillance equipment installed, I think your revolution will be met at the door step by two gentlemen in black suits.
  - flooyd 13y ago
    1. I never claimed to be a part of any revolution. I'm not. 2. This is a burner account and I'm logged in via tor.
    - swombat 13y ago
      You're not taking into account the invisible, microscopic swarm of nanocameras that have been hovering around you since fifteen years ago, when, aged 12, you posted a comment that now strongly correlates with later activities that are not condoned by the government, especially since the new laws passed 2 years ago.
      - shrikant 13y ago
        This thread is ripe for a Slashdot-esque comment: "I think revolution is the only way for@#�%((((#*;;;";!@ NO CARRIER"
- tomjen3 13y ago
  There won't be a revolution unless the US institutes a draft. Anything else will be hated, debated and fought against but it won't go to the level of an actual revolution. The issue isn't to get everybody or even a majority of the population to act, 10% would be enough. 30 million people marching from all over the country on DC to converge on the lawn of the White House would force the government to give in to their protests; 30 million people is far too many to remove using riot police and even you are prepared to shoot at them do they wouldn't have enough bullets to get them all (or even a significant chunk). The problem is that you have to get 30 million people to act at the same time, together. I can't see anything but a massive draft that would galvernize that many people around one course.
doe88 13y ago
I think Glenn Greenwald is a damn good writer, I used to read his articles a lot when he was writing for Salon, he really read a lot, has an extensive knowledge of this area and knows how to use all these excerpts and quote extensively to prove his point. Think of a kind of The Daily Show segments but for written articles. As I'm actually busy myself in my work I must say I'm not able to read all his writings since he started working for The Guardian, but I am both happy and worry that this is him that brought this proof to the public knowledge. I hope the US Gov will have the decency to admit it was fair game and not try to retaliate, but I must say based on past outcomes I'm not optimist about that. And this article insisting in calling him a blogger, I don't know their motivations maybe to separate him from real journalists but it makes me sick, typical from NYT though.
- rpgmaker 13y ago
  Seriously, that's an insult to Glenn Greenwald. The Daily Show is good as far as entertainment goes but Greenwald writes about serious stuff in a very concise and substantive way.
einhverfr 13y ago
Will the US prosecute Greenwald for the leak? No way. If they do that, it will be harder to say anything about free speech or freedom of the press in this country, and that is not the American way. What is, unfortunately, the American way, is to try to find something else to charge him with (see Assange for example), not only to silence him but also to discredit him. Do not be surprised if allegations of pedophilia or other crimes are made. Many decades ago my mother's uncle (http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/cpproject/caughlan_interview.shtml http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/cpproject/caughlan_inter...) began to build his private legal practice on defending people from Smith Act prosecutions due to involvement with the Communist Party USA (ironically he never really considered profit much of a motivator for him, and he left a high powered law firm to defend the Community Party), distributing Marxist literature, and the like. Did the government come after him? Yes. With the Smith Act? No. They didn't want to come right out and say "we don't want these people to have good legal representation." Instead they came with a variety of unrelated, and eventually sent him to prison for a year. Unusually he was reinstated to the bar on his release (which is somewhat unusual). (Listening to the interviews with him, I hadn't known he was kicked out of the ACLU for defending civil liberties of Communists.) The goal wasn't to throw him in prison but to take away his voice. It didn't work with John. He went on to fight, fight, and fight some more, eventually winning significant victories for political freedom in this country. With someone like Greenwald, though I don't know. It does seem to have been fairly effective at discrediting Assange. I harp a lot on "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime" and certainly we are not at the same level the Stalinist USSR was, but I can tell you that it is something that has roots in the US as well.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- tome 13y ago
  Assange hasn't been charged with anything by the US.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    All the better to say we had nothing to do with it, but given that he was charged during the controversy do you really think that had nothing to do with it? My mother's uncle, John Caughlan, was charged first with purjury for claiming he was never a member of the Communist Party at an immigration hearing (where he was an attorney, on behalf of, I think Hazel Wolf), and then on various tax technicalities, and so forth until something stuck. He eventually spent a year in jail. The further it is removed from the controversy the better. That Assange and Greenwald are outside the US makes them easier targets for accusations passed on to foreign police forces.
danso 13y ago
It's doubtful that he will be prosecuted. What's much more likely is that his source will be the target of a hunt and subsequently prosecuted as have other leakers recently
Vivtek 13y ago
Hahaha! Greenwald would love that...
madaxe 13y ago
Absolutely they will, as they have in other similar cases. They may or may not succeed, but they already have a track record of going after journalists, so I don't see why this should be any different. If they don't push for prosecution, he'll probably have an "accident" at some point in the not too distant future, like has happened to plenty of other whistleblowers, or at the very, very least, they'll turn his name to mud through aspersions and insinuations of sex crimes and so-forth.
prollyignored 13y ago
Where is Sam Lowry ?
Buzaga 13y ago
Apparently, he doesn't live in US but in Brazil(where I'm located, also), the irony is that since he's not in US it's they can probably run PRISM all over his stuff... I mean, he's american so maybe there's some little safeguards, but at this point he's probably already considered an enemy of US or aiding it so this can be bypassed, and even if not, since invading ALL PRIVACY of foreigners, me included, seems to be cool, they can run it through everyone near him and 'accidentally' get what they want, lawls...
davidmr 13y ago
It wouldn't be unprecedented for him to be held in contempt for refusing to reveal a source, but the article doesn't make clear that it is not illegal for a journalist to leak classified information as long as they're not the one who holds the clearance. It is very illegal for someone who holds a clearance to provide that information to a reporter, but if you happen to stumble across it without breaking the law, you can publish it. Mark Klein, the AT&T engineer who found the NSA wiretaps in the AT&T colo was never prosecuted for this reason. He was just doing his job, sans clearance, and stumbled into the blueprints.
grandalf 13y ago
There is a game of chess going on and the NY Times just played an interesting move. It wrote a story that appears to flatter Greenwald but in fact gives the reader the lexicon to dismiss/ignore him. Clearly if the NYT wanted to be doing investigative journalism to challenge government overreach, it would be.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  Yes. Why did the put all those smear (slander) quotes at the end of the article?
  - grandalf 13y ago
    Also the bizarre photo in which he looks stressed out.
Alex3917 13y ago
Bradley Manning leaks classified information after learning that he was going to get kicked out of the military for being gay. Greenwald publishes this article after basically getting kicked out of the country for being gay. Anyone starting to see a pattern here?
- ihsw 13y ago
  Glenn mentions this and specifically points out that there is a pattern: > When you grow up gay, you are not part of the system, it forces you to evaluate: ‘Is it me, or is the system bad?’ One has to wonder whether the government considers gays and lesbians high-risk dangerous individuals, and furthermore whether they should establish inclusive policies for gays and lesbians to deter any anti-establishment tendencies (or to establish exclusive policies discouraging or preventing gays and lesbians from holding sensitive government jobs).
  - darkarmani 13y ago
    > One has to wonder whether the government considers gays and lesbians high-risk dangerous individuals, It used to be a security clearance risk. The idea that you might be blackmailed with the threat of being outed.
    - tomjen3 13y ago
      I could see that be an issue with that today too (as would extra marital affairs, gambling debts, etc) but I doubt they would care one way or the other if you weren't in the closet.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Manning leaked information far before his discharge processing had started. Go read his own personal statement he made to the court, it's enlightening if nothing else.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jellicle 13y ago
It's a nice hit piece the NYT whipped up. Do they normally publish biographies of journalists who write leak pieces? No? Only when it's time to smear someone. Here's what the NYT was asking: http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.hk/2013/06/nytsullivan-email-exchange.html http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.hk/2013/06/nytsullivan-email-exch... Is he a weirdo loner biased advocate gay blogger? Just say yes! Really sad to see the NYT fighting against transparency in government.
chrisgd 13y ago
He is a lawyer that practiced with one of the most prestigous firms in the country and has written several best selling books, including a NY Times bestseller or two. Calling him a blogger is the NYTimes attempt to discredit him to a certain extent in the eyes of their readers.

181 points by uvdiv 13y ago

uvdiv 13y ago

"The article, which included a link to the order, is expected to attract an investigation from the Justice Department, which has aggressively pursued leakers."

mtgx 13y ago

They are not even hiding they are going after journalists who expose their crimes now, are they?

jlgreco 13y ago
If you are trying to send a message, it is best that you are sure the recipients understand it. You cannot be too subtle or you will risk not being understood.
lostlogin 13y ago
Ask an Al-Jazeera reporter what its like getting into the US. I don't read Al-Jazeera stuff very often, but I've never found anything that didn't seem to be good quality reporting. Yet their reporters are held for hours at the US border and questioned at greater length than actual terror suspects who've gone on to bomb stuff. It's bad.
- jebeng 13y ago
  I've found Al-Jazeera to be the best news network out there. It seems to be only one that's not ridiculously biased and ratings driven.
  - tome 13y ago
    The bias of Fox News and the NYT are easy for Americans to see, because they both have an slant that impacts US domestic policy. Just because Al Jazeera doesn't have such a slant does not mean it is not biased.
    - cinquemb 13y ago
      Bingo, they are heavily influenced by Qatar. Influences of which help to promote the Khalifah's view points, some of which are in lock step with american foreign policy... though they play on both sides of the fences just as well as any other nation state.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    Their history speaks for itself. They were originally a branch office of the BBC who decided to go independent when they were closed due to embarrassing the Saudi government. The embarrassment had to do with a documentary about Sharia law executions in that country. The BBC backed down, but the reporters didn't. I don't care what country's government you are from, would you like to make it easy for reporters like that to get into your country? ;-)
  - ihsw 13y ago
    AJ is in an interesting position: * most news networks in the middle east are state-run (and very obviously oppressive with heavy censorship), however AJ operates distinctly independently * as such people in the middle east are exposed to news they wouldn't normally be exposed to, for example controversial news stories or other news stories that require strict objectivity * western news networks are increasingly rebroadcasting AJ footage, most interestingly because AJ acquires exclusive interviews that other news networks aren't privy to * AJ provides live feeds of their news channel for free online * they are growing, and have plans to offer[1] Turkish (Turkey), Spanish (Latin American), and Urdu (Pakistani) channels It's exciting to say the least. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#Plans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#Plans
    - cinquemb 13y ago
      Not being state run does not mean it is not under the influences of the state and the position its leaders take. "First, it is home to al-Jazeera, the Arabic-language news network that has transformed how Arabs get their news. Many give the television channel more credit for spurring on the Arab Spring than Facebook or Twitter. By bringing the revolutions into the homes of every Arab, al-Jazeera drew regional attention to early events in Tunisia and helped boost the number of Egyptians on the streets from the thousands to the hundreds of thousands. Al-Jazeera gives Qatar “soft power” well beyond its size."[0] Kinda like the history between the CIA and many news organizations that "operate distinctly independently".[1] [0]: http://www.cfr.org/qatar/tiny-qatars-big-plans-may-change-mideast/p26143 http://www.cfr.org/qatar/tiny-qatars-big-plans-may-change-mi... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_the_media#Use_of_mass_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_the_media#Use_of_mass_...
- tome 13y ago
  > their reporters are held for hours at the US border and questioned at greater length than actual terror suspects Citation very sorely needed.
  - olefoo 13y ago
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/25/sami-al-hajj-al-jazeera-j_n_853297.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/25/sami-al-hajj-al-jaz... Oh, wait that's not the one you were looking for; it's much worse; he's being held in a concentration camp; and questioned extensively about his employer... http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/riskingitall/2011/05/2011514141451471429.html http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/riskingitall/2011/05/201... Oh wait, no that's an Al-Jazeera story about US Border crossings. So you're right, five minutes of googling didn't turn up stories about Al-Jazeera reporters being held at US Border crossings or denied entry to the US. So it must not have happened ever!
    - tome 13y ago
      There's no need to be sarcastic about it. The comment I replied to says that when Al Jazeera reporters try to get into the US they have been questioned harder than actual terror suspects. Do you actually believe that?
      - SamReidHughes 13y ago
        That's perfectly believable. You don't want to tip off a terror suspect that he's under suspicion.
        tome 13y ago
        Good point.
        lostlogin 13y ago
        If never looked at it this way - its does make sense. However it doesn't explain the treatment of reporters.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

ibrahima 13y ago

I'm really glad he did this, took a lot of bravery I'm sure. I almost get the feeling that he's happy to be in the crosshairs of the US government.

flooyd 13y ago

If the U.S. prosecutes Greenwald, then it's time to prepare for a revolution.

KNoureen 13y ago
Considering NSA and other three letter agencies apparently have quite plenty of surveillance equipment installed, I think your revolution will be met at the door step by two gentlemen in black suits.
- flooyd 13y ago
  1. I never claimed to be a part of any revolution. I'm not. 2. This is a burner account and I'm logged in via tor.
  - swombat 13y ago
    You're not taking into account the invisible, microscopic swarm of nanocameras that have been hovering around you since fifteen years ago, when, aged 12, you posted a comment that now strongly correlates with later activities that are not condoned by the government, especially since the new laws passed 2 years ago.
    - shrikant 13y ago
      This thread is ripe for a Slashdot-esque comment: "I think revolution is the only way for@#�%((((#*;;;";!@ NO CARRIER"
tomjen3 13y ago
There won't be a revolution unless the US institutes a draft. Anything else will be hated, debated and fought against but it won't go to the level of an actual revolution. The issue isn't to get everybody or even a majority of the population to act, 10% would be enough. 30 million people marching from all over the country on DC to converge on the lawn of the White House would force the government to give in to their protests; 30 million people is far too many to remove using riot police and even you are prepared to shoot at them do they wouldn't have enough bullets to get them all (or even a significant chunk). The problem is that you have to get 30 million people to act at the same time, together. I can't see anything but a massive draft that would galvernize that many people around one course.

doe88 13y ago

I think Glenn Greenwald is a damn good writer, I used to read his articles a lot when he was writing for Salon, he really read a lot, has an extensive knowledge of this area and knows how to use all these excerpts and quote extensively to prove his point. Think of a kind of The Daily Show segments but for written articles. As I'm actually busy myself in my work I must say I'm not able to read all his writings since he started working for The Guardian, but I am both happy and worry that this is him that brought this proof to the public knowledge. I hope the US Gov will have the decency to admit it was fair game and not try to retaliate, but I must say based on past outcomes I'm not optimist about that. And this article insisting in calling him a blogger, I don't know their motivations maybe to separate him from real journalists but it makes me sick, typical from NYT though.

rpgmaker 13y ago
Seriously, that's an insult to Glenn Greenwald. The Daily Show is good as far as entertainment goes but Greenwald writes about serious stuff in a very concise and substantive way.

einhverfr 13y ago

Will the US prosecute Greenwald for the leak? No way. If they do that, it will be harder to say anything about free speech or freedom of the press in this country, and that is not the American way. What is, unfortunately, the American way, is to try to find something else to charge him with (see Assange for example), not only to silence him but also to discredit him. Do not be surprised if allegations of pedophilia or other crimes are made. Many decades ago my mother's uncle (http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/cpproject/caughlan_interview.shtml http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/cpproject/caughlan_inter...) began to build his private legal practice on defending people from Smith Act prosecutions due to involvement with the Communist Party USA (ironically he never really considered profit much of a motivator for him, and he left a high powered law firm to defend the Community Party), distributing Marxist literature, and the like. Did the government come after him? Yes. With the Smith Act? No. They didn't want to come right out and say "we don't want these people to have good legal representation." Instead they came with a variety of unrelated, and eventually sent him to prison for a year. Unusually he was reinstated to the bar on his release (which is somewhat unusual). (Listening to the interviews with him, I hadn't known he was kicked out of the ACLU for defending civil liberties of Communists.) The goal wasn't to throw him in prison but to take away his voice. It didn't work with John. He went on to fight, fight, and fight some more, eventually winning significant victories for political freedom in this country. With someone like Greenwald, though I don't know. It does seem to have been fairly effective at discrediting Assange. I harp a lot on "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime" and certainly we are not at the same level the Stalinist USSR was, but I can tell you that it is something that has roots in the US as well.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
tome 13y ago
Assange hasn't been charged with anything by the US.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  All the better to say we had nothing to do with it, but given that he was charged during the controversy do you really think that had nothing to do with it? My mother's uncle, John Caughlan, was charged first with purjury for claiming he was never a member of the Communist Party at an immigration hearing (where he was an attorney, on behalf of, I think Hazel Wolf), and then on various tax technicalities, and so forth until something stuck. He eventually spent a year in jail. The further it is removed from the controversy the better. That Assange and Greenwald are outside the US makes them easier targets for accusations passed on to foreign police forces.

danso 13y ago

It's doubtful that he will be prosecuted. What's much more likely is that his source will be the target of a hunt and subsequently prosecuted as have other leakers recently

Vivtek 13y ago

Hahaha! Greenwald would love that...

madaxe 13y ago

Absolutely they will, as they have in other similar cases. They may or may not succeed, but they already have a track record of going after journalists, so I don't see why this should be any different. If they don't push for prosecution, he'll probably have an "accident" at some point in the not too distant future, like has happened to plenty of other whistleblowers, or at the very, very least, they'll turn his name to mud through aspersions and insinuations of sex crimes and so-forth.

prollyignored 13y ago

Where is Sam Lowry ?

Buzaga 13y ago

Apparently, he doesn't live in US but in Brazil(where I'm located, also), the irony is that since he's not in US it's they can probably run PRISM all over his stuff... I mean, he's american so maybe there's some little safeguards, but at this point he's probably already considered an enemy of US or aiding it so this can be bypassed, and even if not, since invading ALL PRIVACY of foreigners, me included, seems to be cool, they can run it through everyone near him and 'accidentally' get what they want, lawls...

davidmr 13y ago

It wouldn't be unprecedented for him to be held in contempt for refusing to reveal a source, but the article doesn't make clear that it is not illegal for a journalist to leak classified information as long as they're not the one who holds the clearance. It is very illegal for someone who holds a clearance to provide that information to a reporter, but if you happen to stumble across it without breaking the law, you can publish it. Mark Klein, the AT&T engineer who found the NSA wiretaps in the AT&T colo was never prosecuted for this reason. He was just doing his job, sans clearance, and stumbled into the blueprints.

grandalf 13y ago

There is a game of chess going on and the NY Times just played an interesting move. It wrote a story that appears to flatter Greenwald but in fact gives the reader the lexicon to dismiss/ignore him. Clearly if the NYT wanted to be doing investigative journalism to challenge government overreach, it would be.

darkarmani 13y ago
Yes. Why did the put all those smear (slander) quotes at the end of the article?
- grandalf 13y ago
  Also the bizarre photo in which he looks stressed out.

Alex3917 13y ago

Bradley Manning leaks classified information after learning that he was going to get kicked out of the military for being gay. Greenwald publishes this article after basically getting kicked out of the country for being gay. Anyone starting to see a pattern here?

ihsw 13y ago
Glenn mentions this and specifically points out that there is a pattern: > When you grow up gay, you are not part of the system, it forces you to evaluate: ‘Is it me, or is the system bad?’ One has to wonder whether the government considers gays and lesbians high-risk dangerous individuals, and furthermore whether they should establish inclusive policies for gays and lesbians to deter any anti-establishment tendencies (or to establish exclusive policies discouraging or preventing gays and lesbians from holding sensitive government jobs).
- darkarmani 13y ago
  > One has to wonder whether the government considers gays and lesbians high-risk dangerous individuals, It used to be a security clearance risk. The idea that you might be blackmailed with the threat of being outed.
  - tomjen3 13y ago
    I could see that be an issue with that today too (as would extra marital affairs, gambling debts, etc) but I doubt they would care one way or the other if you weren't in the closet.
mpyne 13y ago
Manning leaked information far before his discharge processing had started. Go read his own personal statement he made to the court, it's enlightening if nothing else.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jellicle 13y ago

It's a nice hit piece the NYT whipped up. Do they normally publish biographies of journalists who write leak pieces? No? Only when it's time to smear someone. Here's what the NYT was asking: http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.hk/2013/06/nytsullivan-email-exchange.html http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.hk/2013/06/nytsullivan-email-exch... Is he a weirdo loner biased advocate gay blogger? Just say yes! Really sad to see the NYT fighting against transparency in government.

chrisgd 13y ago

He is a lawyer that practiced with one of the most prestigous firms in the country and has written several best selling books, including a NY Times bestseller or two. Calling him a blogger is the NYTimes attempt to discredit him to a certain extent in the eyes of their readers.